Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A jury convicted Jorge Armando Zepeda of first degree murder, attempted murder, four counts of assault with a deadly weapon, and two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and found numerous enhancements true; it acquitted him on one attempted-murder count, and the trial court dismissed a misdemeanor hit-and-run count on the People's motion. The evidence showed Zepeda twice drove his truck over Rodney Hallett, killing him, struck a woman who came to Hallett's aid, rear-ended another car while fleeing, beat its driver with a tire iron, and shot a man who tried to intervene.
Zepeda testified that threatening texts and an early-morning call led him to believe Hallett was one of several men pursuing him, but he conceded Hallett was not the man from an earlier bar fight, and phone records contradicted the claimed call. He had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in June 2023, prompting two court-appointed doctors, but withdrew the plea in August 2023; the reports and withdrawal-hearing transcript were not in the appellate record. Defense counsel initially requested the mental-impairment instruction CALCRIM No. 3428 but withdrew the request after the evidence closed.
At a bifurcated bench trial, the court found the prior-conviction and aggravating allegations true but granted Zepeda's Romero motion to dismiss the prior strike, imposing an aggregate term of 13 years plus 50 years to life. The record documented a January 2021 psychiatric hold and diagnoses of substance-induced psychotic disorder and depressive disorder; the court weighed mental health in mitigation but declined to dismiss the 25-year-to-life firearm enhancement as a public-safety danger. On appeal, Zepeda challenged counsel's failure to present diminished actuality and flagged discrepancies between the oral pronouncement and the written sentencing records.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal rejected the ineffective-assistance claim. Direct appeal requires affirmative evidence that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the omission. Under Penal Code section 28, mental-disorder evidence may show whether a defendant actually formed specific intent, premeditated, deliberated, or harbored malice, but not capacity to form those states. Relying on People v. Elmore and People v. McGehee, the court distinguished permissible diminished-actuality evidence from a defense based solely on delusion, which is an insanity claim reserved for the separate sanity phase.
The record showed Zepeda's proposed defense rested on delusions: he said he killed Hallett and assaulted another victim because he believed they were part of a conspiracy against his family. The prosecution contradicted those beliefs, and Zepeda's opening brief acknowledged he was delusional and acted on delusion. Elmore therefore foreclosed the defense, so counsel was not ineffective for withdrawing CALCRIM No. 3428 or declining to present it; Zepeda was not entitled to the instruction, and counsel need not raise a futile argument.
The court separately found the written sentencing records did not match the oral pronouncement: the abstracts still checked boxes for a serious-felony prior and a prior strike even though the trial court struck the prior conviction, and both abstracts and the minute order omitted the mandatory fines and assessments. Because an abstract only summarizes the judgment and the oral pronouncement controls, the court directed corrections to the January 10, 2025 minutes and both abstracts, ordered a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Withdrawing an insanity plea does not make a solely delusion-based theory available as diminished actuality in the guilt phase.
- Penal Code section 28 allows mental-disorder evidence on whether required mental states were actually formed, but Elmore bars using delusion-based claims that are functionally insanity.
- Counsel was not ineffective for abandoning CALCRIM No. 3428 because Zepeda's proposed defense depended on delusions and was foreclosed.
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentence while directing the trial court to correct the minutes and abstracts to reflect the struck prior and the mandatory fines and assessments.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the California Supreme Court's diminished-actuality/insanity distinction to an ineffective-assistance claim after a withdrawn insanity plea. The holding is record-specific: Zepeda's own testimony and appellate brief framed his mental-state theory as delusional, so counsel's omission could not support reversal. The court did not exclude all mental-illness evidence from the guilt phase; evidence short of delusion may still support diminished actuality.
The sentencing ruling reinforces that abstracts and minute orders must match the oral pronouncement. The limited remand corrects clerical errors concerning the dismissed prior and mandatory financial impositions without disturbing the affirmed judgment or the trial court's sentencing choices.